>PS - What the hell is a 'More than 100,000" setting?
From the Beta IIS4.0 class I took, I recall there is a setting for "performance" where you tell it how many hits the site is expected to get in some time period.. a day, I think. That's the top setting, presumably telling it to dedicate more resources to HTTP serving.
I'd previously put Redhat 5.2 on a Dell 6100 using the same AMI MegaRAID 0.92 driver mentioned in the article. I believe it was using kernel version 2.0.35. Was able to turn SMP and RAID on at the same time with no apparent difficulty, except for the PS/2 mouse not working, which we didn't care about. (BTW, this machine originally ran NT, but we had to switch to Linux to get it to perform it's VPN gateway task effectively.)
It's a bit of a moot point, since we've been buying VA Research machines, but I wanted to know which, if any, RAID driver would be used on a Dell 6300. Now I know the same one that we used on the 6100 works. Thanks, Mindcraft!
BTW, Dell will sell that machine with either NT or Linux preinstalled.. I wonder why they didn't test it that way? Certainly Dell would ship them with all the memory enabled under Linux, and with everything properly partitioned, etc... ?
>I've read most of the comments up until now and >it's time I made another note. A lot of you are >focusing on the GNU/Linux issue. Don't.
I think one could interpret this as evidence about what the Slashdot readers are concernced with. Heck, they're even posting about it in thread where RMS, FSF, etc.. weren't originally mentioned.
Your article can be interpreted as being at least partially in defense of him and his insistence that Linux be called GNU/Linux. The "attacks" the FSF is undergoing here can't be fun, but if nothing else, I hope the message gets back to RMS that some people don't care for his insistence that it be called GNU/Linux.. even if it might be deserved.
Ok, I can pretty much follow "Free speech, not free beer."
Now.. does free speech = free plagerism? I don't think so. In fact, the GPL requires acknowledgement.
But, let's take a look at the bad analogy:
If I take the Gettysburg Address, even though all copyrights may have expired, it may be public domain, etc, etc.. if I re-release it with my name as the author, well, then I'm a jerk. I'm also not fooling anybody.
However, if I take the Gettysburg Address, and put a copy into a book called "Famous American Speeches" I'm OK.
Why? It's a matter of giving credit, of giving acknowledgement.
So which side of this issue am I on? I want to call it simply Linux.
If I write the above book, I don't have to, and shouldn't be expected to list Lincoln as a co-author.
Linus(x?) makes no attempt to claim the g* tools are his. The distributions carry the appropriate acknowledments. Nobody has been fooled into thinking the Linux people wrote gcc.
I think what RMS is looking for is not proper acknowledgement, but rather thanks and appreciation. He deserves it, too. Unfortunately, thanks can only be given, and not taken.
Other threads are insinuating that GNU is nothing without the Kernel. That's BS. I was using gcc long before Linux. I've got a whole bunch of GNU stuff on my Solaris box.
Other threads claim RMS is out of control, perhaps hurting GNU. Sadly, I think he's hurting GNU. Why? Look at all the people here who have been insulted by his demand, and are looking to dump the GNU tools. That's bad.. they're good tools, and there is no reason to divide the number of open source developers between competing projects.
The same goes for pushing hurd instead of Linux..
I think everyone needs to get over what the distributions are called, quit feeling hurt if they think they aren't getting enough recognition, and get on with the coding.
I'm no one in particular, just another Linux user. I take offense to RMS's insistence that it be called GNU Linux. I don't think this has to do with whether he's asking fair credit for his team or not, but rather the way he handled it.
How rude, to stop to correct someone in the middle of a Q&A session in front of everyone to make them call it GNU Linux.
You know what my first thought was? How much GNU could be taken out, and make a make a tiny Linux setup.
RMS sounds like he's daring the Linux crowd to hack the GNU code out. Certainly that's not what he wants...
Slashdot Mirror
>PS - What the hell is a 'More than 100,000" setting?
From the Beta IIS4.0 class I took, I recall there is a setting for "performance" where you tell it how many hits the site is expected to get in some time period.. a day, I think. That's the top setting, presumably telling it to dedicate more resources to HTTP serving.
I'd previously put Redhat 5.2 on a Dell 6100 using the same AMI MegaRAID 0.92 driver mentioned in the article. I believe it was using kernel version 2.0.35. Was able to turn SMP and RAID on at the same time with no apparent difficulty, except for the PS/2 mouse not working, which we didn't care about. (BTW, this machine originally ran NT, but we had to switch to Linux to get it to perform it's VPN gateway task effectively.)
It's a bit of a moot point, since we've been buying VA Research machines, but I wanted to know which, if any, RAID driver would be used on a Dell 6300. Now I know the same one that we used on the 6100 works. Thanks, Mindcraft!
BTW, Dell will sell that machine with either NT or Linux preinstalled.. I wonder why they didn't test it that way? Certainly Dell would ship them with all the memory enabled under Linux, and with everything properly partitioned, etc... ?
>I've read most of the comments up until now and
>it's time I made another note. A lot of you are
>focusing on the GNU/Linux issue. Don't.
I think one could interpret this as evidence about what the Slashdot readers are concernced with. Heck, they're even posting about it in thread where RMS, FSF, etc.. weren't originally mentioned.
Your article can be interpreted as being at least partially in defense of him and his insistence that Linux be called GNU/Linux. The "attacks" the FSF is undergoing here can't be fun, but if nothing else, I hope the message gets back to RMS that some people don't care for his insistence that it be called GNU/Linux.. even if it might be deserved.
Ryan
Ok, I can pretty much follow "Free speech, not free beer."
Now.. does free speech = free plagerism? I don't think so. In fact, the GPL requires acknowledgement.
But, let's take a look at the bad analogy:
If I take the Gettysburg Address, even though all copyrights may have expired, it may be public domain, etc, etc.. if I re-release it with my name as the author, well, then I'm a jerk. I'm also not fooling anybody.
However, if I take the Gettysburg Address, and put a copy into a book called "Famous American Speeches" I'm OK.
Why? It's a matter of giving credit, of giving acknowledgement.
So which side of this issue am I on? I want to call it simply Linux.
If I write the above book, I don't have to, and shouldn't be expected to list Lincoln as a co-author.
Linus(x?) makes no attempt to claim the g* tools are his. The distributions carry the appropriate acknowledments. Nobody has been fooled into thinking the Linux people wrote gcc.
I think what RMS is looking for is not proper acknowledgement, but rather thanks and appreciation. He deserves it, too. Unfortunately, thanks can only be given, and not taken.
Other threads are insinuating that GNU is nothing without the Kernel. That's BS. I was using gcc long before Linux. I've got a whole bunch of GNU stuff on my Solaris box.
Other threads claim RMS is out of control, perhaps hurting GNU. Sadly, I think he's hurting GNU. Why? Look at all the people here who have been insulted by his demand, and are looking to dump the GNU tools. That's bad.. they're good tools, and there is no reason to divide the number of open source developers between competing projects.
The same goes for pushing hurd instead of Linux..
I think everyone needs to get over what the distributions are called, quit feeling hurt if they think they aren't getting enough recognition, and get on with the coding.
Ryan
I'm no one in particular, just another Linux user. I take offense to RMS's insistence that it be called GNU Linux. I don't think this has to do with whether he's asking fair credit for his team or not, but rather the way he handled it.
How rude, to stop to correct someone in the middle of a Q&A session in front of everyone to make them call it GNU Linux.
You know what my first thought was? How much GNU could be taken out, and make a make a tiny Linux setup.
RMS sounds like he's daring the Linux crowd to hack the GNU code out. Certainly that's not what he wants...